I can't possibly pick just one pullquote
May 11, 2016 2:07 AM Subscribe
David Axelrod talks to Jon Stewart [full transcript, 50 minute audio] (surfacing for the first time in quite a while) at the University Of Chicago Institute Of Politics about everything you might hope. Don't expect it to go where you want it to go.
I found myself nodding a lot and pleased to have his insights about this confusing season.
I found myself nodding a lot and pleased to have his insights about this confusing season.
STEWART: But I will choose just this one: posted by hippybear at 2:10 AM on May 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
It was great to see him in longer form again. I thoroughly enjoyed this. It's always good to be reminded how funny he can be without a script as such.
posted by trif at 4:57 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by trif at 4:57 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've never seen Jon in this form, I didn't realize how deeply he thinks about things.
I was saddened to learn how lobbying really works, but informed at the same time.
posted by MikeWarot at 5:07 AM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I was saddened to learn how lobbying really works, but informed at the same time.
posted by MikeWarot at 5:07 AM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I watched this yesterday. Pretty good. I like the bit where Jon and David are awkwardly going at each other and Jon says something like, "Don't worry, this is how Jews make love.", to the audience.
posted by rmmcclay at 5:07 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by rmmcclay at 5:07 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I recommend the video because that transcript is awful and broke my brain.
posted by echocollate at 5:55 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by echocollate at 5:55 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I love how the clearly enunciated motherfucker in "you've got to be a rich motherfucker to have your own theme music" becomes (inaudible) in the CNN transcript.
posted by brokkr at 6:01 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by brokkr at 6:01 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
There were a lot of good quotes, but I'll go with this one:
So, the whole idea of political correctness is everybody's so sensitive, just get over it. you know, why should African Americans be so sensitive about police shootings? Why do they have to be so sensitive about years of systemic racism creating economic disparity?
posted by Foosnark at 6:07 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
So, the whole idea of political correctness is everybody's so sensitive, just get over it. you know, why should African Americans be so sensitive about police shootings? Why do they have to be so sensitive about years of systemic racism creating economic disparity?
posted by Foosnark at 6:07 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Was a great interview, but Stewart always frustrates me when he talks about how Obama and the Democrats can somehow make government work better by executive order alone, like a GOP-controlled Congress and a whole army of conservative interest groups and media interests won't throw up every legal and political obstacle they can. I was glad that Axelrod pushed back a bit on that (a very difficult thing to do with Stewart).
posted by longdaysjourney at 6:14 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by longdaysjourney at 6:14 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Was a great interview, but Stewart always frustrates me when he talks about how Obama and the Democrats can somehow make government work better by executive order alone, like a GOP-controlled Congress and a whole army of conservative interest groups and media interests won't throw up every legal and political obstacle they can.
This is the cop out, though. That everything required to reform the bureaucracy requires some kind of bipartisan congressional approval. Look, you control the Executive Branch, by far the largest tributary to redundancy and inefficiency in government. The reasons you aren't willing to take steps to reform some of this stuff are (a) it's hard, (b) we've got better shit to do. In the meantime, your inattentiveness is only compounding the problem. So you're going to what, leave it for the next Republican administration to sort out? A Democratic successor? It's a cop out, and Stewart's right. I'm glad he called him on it.
posted by echocollate at 6:31 AM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is the cop out, though. That everything required to reform the bureaucracy requires some kind of bipartisan congressional approval. Look, you control the Executive Branch, by far the largest tributary to redundancy and inefficiency in government. The reasons you aren't willing to take steps to reform some of this stuff are (a) it's hard, (b) we've got better shit to do. In the meantime, your inattentiveness is only compounding the problem. So you're going to what, leave it for the next Republican administration to sort out? A Democratic successor? It's a cop out, and Stewart's right. I'm glad he called him on it.
posted by echocollate at 6:31 AM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Stewart does a good job articulating a point that I've brought up with friends who are incredulous about Trump, and has come up a few times on Metafilter as well. Trump reconciles the cognitive dissonance of the GOP's calculated dishonesty in its rhetoric.
posted by Wretch729 at 6:37 AM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
STEWART: [...] Donald Trump makes more sense than anybody else out there because he's going, "Great, let's build -- the Visigoths are out the gate. Let's build a f---ing wall and not let it..." It makes total sense. What wouldn't make sense are the general republican leadership going, "There are Visigoths at the wall, they are here to kill you, let's try and not pass a new budget resolution." You know that's...Another thing that frustrates is I keep getting annoyed at how Stewart will make a great point or start to and then immediately undermine it with a joke about Trump's hands or Axelrod's mustache or something. But then I think (and this is something Stewart himself has said many times) he's a $#@%ing comedian! Why am I looking to him to really engage in this critique of the many failings of the media? Why do I look to him and not whoever today's equivalent to Edward R Murrow is? (The answer probably has to do with the fact that Murrow's show couldn't compete in the ratings even in the 1950s, so maybe it's a human nature problem.) Even in this interview Stewart touches on the idea a couple times that there's no shortage of good satire, but that that isn't necessarily going to do anything to improve governance, like in hippybear's pull quote.
AXELROD: Yeah.
STEWART: Their rhetoric has never matched their action. Donald Trump is saying, "Oh, that's your rhetoric? Then yeah...
posted by Wretch729 at 6:37 AM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I recommend the video because that transcript is awful and broke my brain.
Nothing particularly awful about that transcript. that's what transcripts are, a literal transcript of the conversation. But the video is better, yes.
posted by Pendragon at 6:44 AM on May 11, 2016
Nothing particularly awful about that transcript. that's what transcripts are, a literal transcript of the conversation. But the video is better, yes.
posted by Pendragon at 6:44 AM on May 11, 2016
Nothing particularly awful about that transcript.
Except for all the incorrect transcriptions and the obvious fact it wasn't proofread by someone competent. "Lexus Nexus" made me cringe (even if it brings a funny image to mind) but there were a lot of other simply wrong words. The errors were distracting.
posted by Foosnark at 6:51 AM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Except for all the incorrect transcriptions and the obvious fact it wasn't proofread by someone competent. "Lexus Nexus" made me cringe (even if it brings a funny image to mind) but there were a lot of other simply wrong words. The errors were distracting.
posted by Foosnark at 6:51 AM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
The editing on the transcript was bad (seed versus cede was the one that got me) and without Stewart's intonation it's much harder to tell when he's making a joke but I'm just glad there was a transcript at all and I'm glad it was linked in the FPP, so thank you hippybear for finding that.
posted by Wretch729 at 6:58 AM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Wretch729 at 6:58 AM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
>STEWART: "What I think about Hillary Clinton is, you know, I imagine to be a very bright woman without the courage of her convictions because I'm not even sure what they are."..."But, I think she will be in big trouble if she can't find a way, and maybe I'm wrong. Maybe a real person doesn't exist underneath there. I don't know."
He nails the vibe I get from Clinton and why I'm worried about her facing Trump. People seem to prefer the authentic madman to the inauthentic politician.
posted by anti social order at 7:04 AM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
He nails the vibe I get from Clinton and why I'm worried about her facing Trump. People seem to prefer the authentic madman to the inauthentic politician.
posted by anti social order at 7:04 AM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
The transcript is difficult because they are having a "hummingbird" kind of conversation-they Don t speak in full sentences and interrupt one another. Stewart constantly Interrupts himself to speak in character, and the transcriber acknowledges this only a few times.
But the transcript is also lacking because the transcriber lacks certain vocabulary ("détente") and makes plenty of mistakes.
posted by eustatic at 7:06 AM on May 11, 2016
But the transcript is also lacking because the transcriber lacks certain vocabulary ("détente") and makes plenty of mistakes.
posted by eustatic at 7:06 AM on May 11, 2016
Obama and the Democrats can somehow make government work better by executive order alone, like a GOP-controlled Congress and a whole army of conservative interest groups and media interests won't throw up every legal and political obstacle they can.
That is kind of their job. Separation of powers and all that boring sort of thing. I'm not thrilled with executive ordered bomb strikes in undeclared wars, quite the opposite, but how happy would Stewart be if executive action were all it took to build a beautiful wall? It is infrastructure, after all.
Vanity Fair, Graydon Carter, did a joke about Donald Trump's hands 25 years ago. He's still not f---ing over it.
Spy, actually. My assumption is that the notes Trump is said to send Carter from time to time are by way of being a joke. Carter could either laugh them off, or pretend to take them seriously in hopes that others will be willing to take it seriously. Who's kidding whom?
posted by IndigoJones at 7:15 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
That is kind of their job. Separation of powers and all that boring sort of thing. I'm not thrilled with executive ordered bomb strikes in undeclared wars, quite the opposite, but how happy would Stewart be if executive action were all it took to build a beautiful wall? It is infrastructure, after all.
Vanity Fair, Graydon Carter, did a joke about Donald Trump's hands 25 years ago. He's still not f---ing over it.
Spy, actually. My assumption is that the notes Trump is said to send Carter from time to time are by way of being a joke. Carter could either laugh them off, or pretend to take them seriously in hopes that others will be willing to take it seriously. Who's kidding whom?
posted by IndigoJones at 7:15 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Ax Files is one of my favorite new podcasts, check out the back catalog if you enjoyed this.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 7:22 AM on May 11, 2016
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 7:22 AM on May 11, 2016
"STEWART: Right. Now, what gives me hope in that is that there's a delay, which means she's somehow fighting something. I've seen politicians who don't have that delay and render their inauthenticity in real time and that's when you go, "That's a sociopath.""
I think he just described Ted Cruz
posted by eustatic at 7:34 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think he just described Ted Cruz
posted by eustatic at 7:34 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
My assumption is that the notes Trump is said to send Carter from time to time are by way of being a joke.
There has been no evidence, ever, that Trump has a sense of humour about himself and is willing to be the butt of a joke. What sense of humour he does have is only ever used to tell people how great he is.
posted by cardboard at 7:37 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
There has been no evidence, ever, that Trump has a sense of humour about himself and is willing to be the butt of a joke. What sense of humour he does have is only ever used to tell people how great he is.
posted by cardboard at 7:37 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
The man is fearless and totally put Axelrod on the defensive when he (Axelrod) was trying to justify various Obama administration action/inaction. And it would appear that Jon Stewart is still as pissed off in 2016 as he was when he stepped down from the Daily Show. What I like about his world view the most is his call to citizen engagement - the US needs a revolution.
posted by bluesky43 at 7:48 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by bluesky43 at 7:48 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I posted this is the giant election thread, as well, but it didn't get much discussion there, so I'm glad it got its own post.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:23 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 8:23 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is the cop out, though. That everything required to reform the bureaucracy requires some kind of bipartisan congressional approval.
"Reforming the bureaucracy" is not going to get around a Congress that is trying to paralyze government and block policy. There's only so much you can do by executive order alone when the branch of government that is supposed to confirm officials and appropriate funds, etc. refuses to act or intentionally works to undermine good governance.
posted by longdaysjourney at 8:36 AM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
needs to be repeated...
He nails the vibe I get from Clinton and why I'm worried about her facing Trump. People seem to prefer the authentic madman to the inauthentic politician.
Trump surges in support, almost even with Clinton in national U.S. poll
posted by kliuless at 8:42 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
STEWART: Here -- but here's the real political incorrectness. If they really want to be truthful, the problems in this country are not because of Mexicans and Muslims, and if they want to, in any way, confront what's really going on, the problems in this country is you have one party in America whose sole purpose is to freeze the government and to not fix any of the problems that are associated with it. They have a great game going, which is: government sucks and can't get the job done, and then they can sit as an impediment to that government and point to their destruction as evidence of their thesis. It's a great tautology and it's -- for what everyone is saying about the democrats, maybe they're feckless, maybe they focus too much on identify politics, or they're not fiscally responsible. At least they're f---ing trying.again and again and again, imo! (until it's not true anymore ;)
He nails the vibe I get from Clinton and why I'm worried about her facing Trump. People seem to prefer the authentic madman to the inauthentic politician.
Trump surges in support, almost even with Clinton in national U.S. poll
posted by kliuless at 8:42 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm pretty underwhelmed with Axelrod here. He's so milquetoast and boringly pragmatic in his responses to anything. His questions open up interesting topics for Stewart, but none of his questions are incisive.
I'm not a big Stewart homer, but he's pretty lucid and awesome here.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 8:57 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not a big Stewart homer, but he's pretty lucid and awesome here.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 8:57 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Ax Files is one of my favorite new podcasts, check out the back catalog if you enjoyed this.
So far I've only heard the episode with Lindsey Graham, but it is well worth a listen if you are interested in the candid thoughts of an establishment Republican about the imminent demise of his own party in the wake of Cruz and Trump.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:13 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
So far I've only heard the episode with Lindsey Graham, but it is well worth a listen if you are interested in the candid thoughts of an establishment Republican about the imminent demise of his own party in the wake of Cruz and Trump.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:13 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Stewart/C.K. 2024
posted by gottabefunky at 9:27 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by gottabefunky at 9:27 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Reforming the bureaucracy" is not going to get around a Congress that is trying to paralyze government and block policy. There's only so much you can do by executive order alone when the branch of government that is supposed to confirm officials and appropriate funds, etc. refuses to act or intentionally works to undermine good governance.
Which is more or less what Axelrod fired back, to which Stewart more or less replied: you reform what you can control, and you control a significant amount. Again, it's a cop out. The criticism being leveled isn't that the Executive doesn't do more about the things that require Congressional approval or oversight, but that they don't do more to reform and streamline their own house, which is considerable. He mentions contractors in particular, but there's plenty of other stuff.
If Democrats wants to push back against the perception from the right that there's no such thing as good government, they need more than spin and weak excuses. In an ideal world, Republicans would be the party working with and within government to make it more efficient and nimble. But that's clearly not going to happen (I hammer my "conservative" friends about this mercilessly).
Until the Republican party puts on its big person pants and accepts that the federal government isn't going away, that the social safety nets aren't going away, that regulatory agencies aren't fucking going away, the Democrats have to step up on this. It's not fair, but that's the reality.
posted by echocollate at 10:37 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Which is more or less what Axelrod fired back, to which Stewart more or less replied: you reform what you can control, and you control a significant amount. Again, it's a cop out. The criticism being leveled isn't that the Executive doesn't do more about the things that require Congressional approval or oversight, but that they don't do more to reform and streamline their own house, which is considerable. He mentions contractors in particular, but there's plenty of other stuff.
If Democrats wants to push back against the perception from the right that there's no such thing as good government, they need more than spin and weak excuses. In an ideal world, Republicans would be the party working with and within government to make it more efficient and nimble. But that's clearly not going to happen (I hammer my "conservative" friends about this mercilessly).
Until the Republican party puts on its big person pants and accepts that the federal government isn't going away, that the social safety nets aren't going away, that regulatory agencies aren't fucking going away, the Democrats have to step up on this. It's not fair, but that's the reality.
posted by echocollate at 10:37 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
i'm surprised axelrod didn't argue that the role of the president is not one of dictator; that executive orders should be limited.
stewart observed earlier that trump takes previous rhetoric and runs with it. given that, you'd think he'd consider the consequences of advocating executive orders to solve everything. just how much shit do you want?
posted by andrewcooke at 11:13 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
stewart observed earlier that trump takes previous rhetoric and runs with it. given that, you'd think he'd consider the consequences of advocating executive orders to solve everything. just how much shit do you want?
posted by andrewcooke at 11:13 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Democrats wants to push back against the perception from the right that there's no such thing as good government, they need more than spin and weak excuses
Really they just need to act as good government wherever possible and let people know about it. Not a lot else to be done - engaging with the right is clearly pointless.
posted by Artw at 11:26 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Really they just need to act as good government wherever possible and let people know about it. Not a lot else to be done - engaging with the right is clearly pointless.
posted by Artw at 11:26 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
i'm surprised axelrod didn't argue that the role of the president is not one of dictator; that executive orders should be limited.
I think that would have been a weak argument to make when Stewart was arguing that the president seems pretty comfortable killing people from the sky (something a dictator might actually do), but seems hesitant to improve internal bureaucratic structures. Streamlining bureaucratic structure is not the move of a dictator. Stewart was advocating using the tools in the toolbox to try to get things accomplished that the obstructionist congress rightly doesn't have any say in (the internals of how government agencies work).
Also, I don't think Axelrod wanted to turn the session into a debate about the effectiveness of Obama's presidency; that's not the reason Stewart was there, and also Stewart is a brutally effective debater.
I also recommend watching the video, it's long, but a rewarding watch.
I get the impression that Stewart's life has been rewarding outside of the public spotlight, and he's eager not to return to television; good for him.
posted by el io at 12:20 PM on May 11, 2016
I think that would have been a weak argument to make when Stewart was arguing that the president seems pretty comfortable killing people from the sky (something a dictator might actually do), but seems hesitant to improve internal bureaucratic structures. Streamlining bureaucratic structure is not the move of a dictator. Stewart was advocating using the tools in the toolbox to try to get things accomplished that the obstructionist congress rightly doesn't have any say in (the internals of how government agencies work).
Also, I don't think Axelrod wanted to turn the session into a debate about the effectiveness of Obama's presidency; that's not the reason Stewart was there, and also Stewart is a brutally effective debater.
I also recommend watching the video, it's long, but a rewarding watch.
I get the impression that Stewart's life has been rewarding outside of the public spotlight, and he's eager not to return to television; good for him.
posted by el io at 12:20 PM on May 11, 2016
It didn't really come up in this interview but Stewart has been pretty emphatic that he really did want more time with his family. He and his wife seem pretty gung ho about their farm/animal refuge thing too. He only alluded to it here but I've seen an NPR interview with his wife about it and that was what it sounded like.
posted by Wretch729 at 12:27 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Wretch729 at 12:27 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Couldn't he just please come back for election night??? Please??????
posted by museum of fire ants at 12:36 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by museum of fire ants at 12:36 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
My assumption is that the notes Trump is said to send Carter from time to time are by way of being a joke.
Sure -- that's exactly what bullies always fucking say. "It was just a joke! Get a sense of humor!" When I see that excuse, I fucking see red.
posted by odin53 at 1:21 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sure -- that's exactly what bullies always fucking say. "It was just a joke! Get a sense of humor!" When I see that excuse, I fucking see red.
posted by odin53 at 1:21 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I always appreciate Stewart's perspective. I particularly was glad to read his points on perspective and on the arrogance he sees in LA and DC, on the difference between occasional push-backs and a machine that pushes back against propaganda, on the essayistic form of comedy that requires a bit of exposition, and on - as commenters noted above - the dissonance between the GOP's rhetoric and its propositions.
I am curious what the actual first word of the question was in:
posted by brainwane at 1:57 PM on May 11, 2016
I am curious what the actual first word of the question was in:
QUESTION: Aztec. So, Senator Republicans have done a pretty effective job in not confirming Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court....And I don't know enough about Stewart's personal history to understand his life plan as referenced in:
AXELROD: But, you could not have imagined that you would be opining and you'd have the world hanging on your words on politics, on the social scene. I mean, this wasn't -- you couldn't -- this was not your life goal. This is important because I think some kids are taught to believe that they need to have a life plan. You didn't have a life plan to become what you are now.and welcome speculation or facts on either point.
STEWART: I did.
AXELROD: Well, yeah, kind of a circuitous route to get there.
STEWART: I was raised in a laboratory, a comedic laboratory.
posted by brainwane at 1:57 PM on May 11, 2016
QUESTION: Aztec. So, Senator Republicans have done a pretty effective job in not confirming Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court....
It sounded like the mic was turned on mid-word and like the word was 'fantastic' or 'plastic' or something similar.
And I don't know enough about Stewart's personal history to understand his life plan as referenced in:
The subtext here is that Jon Stewart's comedy career was neither particularly political nor successful until the Daily Show, and that the Daily Show started out like more of a celebrity gossip show, but the show and his career rose to the heights that we are familiar with since he took the reins.
posted by thetruthisjustalie at 4:21 PM on May 11, 2016
It sounded like the mic was turned on mid-word and like the word was 'fantastic' or 'plastic' or something similar.
And I don't know enough about Stewart's personal history to understand his life plan as referenced in:
The subtext here is that Jon Stewart's comedy career was neither particularly political nor successful until the Daily Show, and that the Daily Show started out like more of a celebrity gossip show, but the show and his career rose to the heights that we are familiar with since he took the reins.
posted by thetruthisjustalie at 4:21 PM on May 11, 2016
"Most arguments between pundits and academics consist of disguised disagreements over which mode of politics is better, the naïve or the cynical. Indeed, most apparently partisan disagreements are, if you scratch the surface, differences of opinion between cynics and naïfs."
I have no idea if this is a well-known theory or not but I recently came across a blog post that proposed that there are basically only two approaches to politics - the Naive and the Cynical.
The Naive are the idealists who believe that their policies are better, that they can convince people of this fact by intelligent debate, and that when they win, the country is better off as a whole.
The Cynics are those focused on the development of policies that appeal to the widest range of voters, that have a willingness to bend the truth or demonize opponents, and creating a tribal "us vs. them" mentality - all with an ultimate focus on gaining power.
Since coming across this theory, I keep seeing it everywhere - from the divisions regarding local municipal issues to the current divide between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. It's also pretty evident in this video with Jon Stewart as the Naif and David Axelrod as the Cynic.
Obviously, it's not a completely black & white situation and most politicians/pundits/academics will fall somewhere along a continuum - Stewart's lobbying proves he has a practical side and Axelrod would never have signed on with Obama in 2008 if he didn't have a large streak of idealism.
But like I said, I've found this a useful theory - especially when I encounter people who are supposedly part of the same political persuasion as myself but who have very different ideas about how politics works and what the ultimate goal should be.
(Thinking of how everyone is a "shade of grey" on this continuum, I can help but wonder who would be closest to 100% Naive? Maybe someone like Dennis Kucinich? Who would be closest to 100% Cynical? Maybe someone like Richard Nixon?)
posted by Jaybo at 10:38 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have no idea if this is a well-known theory or not but I recently came across a blog post that proposed that there are basically only two approaches to politics - the Naive and the Cynical.
The Naive are the idealists who believe that their policies are better, that they can convince people of this fact by intelligent debate, and that when they win, the country is better off as a whole.
The Cynics are those focused on the development of policies that appeal to the widest range of voters, that have a willingness to bend the truth or demonize opponents, and creating a tribal "us vs. them" mentality - all with an ultimate focus on gaining power.
Since coming across this theory, I keep seeing it everywhere - from the divisions regarding local municipal issues to the current divide between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. It's also pretty evident in this video with Jon Stewart as the Naif and David Axelrod as the Cynic.
Obviously, it's not a completely black & white situation and most politicians/pundits/academics will fall somewhere along a continuum - Stewart's lobbying proves he has a practical side and Axelrod would never have signed on with Obama in 2008 if he didn't have a large streak of idealism.
But like I said, I've found this a useful theory - especially when I encounter people who are supposedly part of the same political persuasion as myself but who have very different ideas about how politics works and what the ultimate goal should be.
(Thinking of how everyone is a "shade of grey" on this continuum, I can help but wonder who would be closest to 100% Naive? Maybe someone like Dennis Kucinich? Who would be closest to 100% Cynical? Maybe someone like Richard Nixon?)
posted by Jaybo at 10:38 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think I realized how much I missed this guy's interviews with politicians. Colbert (in current iteration) and Noah just aren't built for strong conversations—and they're especially not built for strong conversations with conservatives.
posted by Dr and Mrs Eaves at 3:03 AM on May 12, 2016
posted by Dr and Mrs Eaves at 3:03 AM on May 12, 2016
Unexpectedly, this shows you that Jon Stewart hasn't really thought through the consequences of extending executive power. He is right about everything else, though.
posted by ignignokt at 5:37 AM on May 12, 2016
posted by ignignokt at 5:37 AM on May 12, 2016
I don't know... On the one hand I agree with you about setting a dangerous precedent wrt executive power, but I also think el io makes a good point upthread. Is it an extension of executive power if the power already exists and has been used for more nefarious purposes? I think Stewart's take is less that he hasn't thought through the consequences and more that he thinks executive power is inevitably going to be abused so it might as well be abused to more positive effect.
I don't know that he has a good answer to Axelrod's point that a president can't make funding appear by executive order, and social programs need consistent funding to function. (Whereas the DoD already has oodles of funding and the hardware is just sitting there to be used.)
posted by Wretch729 at 9:17 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know that he has a good answer to Axelrod's point that a president can't make funding appear by executive order, and social programs need consistent funding to function. (Whereas the DoD already has oodles of funding and the hardware is just sitting there to be used.)
posted by Wretch729 at 9:17 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
The subtext here is that Jon Stewart's comedy career was neither particularly political nor successful until the Daily Show
While I can agree that his career reached new heights with the Daily Show, I don't think it's particularly fair to conclude that a guy who had his own show on MTV, among other shows he hosted, was not successful.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:22 AM on May 12, 2016
While I can agree that his career reached new heights with the Daily Show, I don't think it's particularly fair to conclude that a guy who had his own show on MTV, among other shows he hosted, was not successful.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:22 AM on May 12, 2016
« Older Redefining Wealth and Prosperity in the 21st... | The Philosopher Who (Kinda) Outsmarted Einstein Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments